mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

My conversion to MFT from Nikon D800 and D750 was motivated more by bulk and transportability than weight, although I do enjoy the light weight of my new gear. The sheer bulk of two Nikon bodies plus 300mm f2.8, 1.4. 1.7 and 2X TCs, plus 17-35 f2.8, 35-70 f2.8 and 50mm f1.8 made it difficult to pack it all into something I could carry onto an airplane. And this issue becomes even more difficult when travelling on regional airlines in Africa or 12 passenger puddle jumpers in Belize. Now I can pack two Olympus EM1MkII bodies (one with battery grip) and lenses covering from 14mm to 800mm equivalent into a carry on so small nobody has ever questioned it. (Oly 7-14mm f2.8, Oly 12-100 f4, Oly 40-150 f2.8 and Panasonic 100-400 f4-6.3) I find the 20MP sensor quite adequate for wildlife photography prints, and if I want detailed landscape shots I can use the 50MP hi-res mode.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

[quote=Jim Bob]

While it might be f4 at 70mm, it gets slower after that. The 300mm f4 was a consideration.

Selene03

I am getting up there in years too, but so far I am mostly ok with my full frame canons and sometimes heavy lenses. I found it was much easier using an op-tech sling strap (there are others that probably work as well, but that one is relatively inexpensive and made a huge difference in balance of weight). I also am more careful about carrying equipment in a smallish backpack if I can when I am out. This also distributes the weight better. The backpack is more like a purse/backpack and offers no protection, but useful when conditions are pretty good. I keep my cameras in regular camera backpacks when in a car or on a plane. I also discovered the Canon Sl2 with a non-L 70-300 that is a good light combination if I am hiking long distances, though I recently did some bouldering with a 5dsr and a 24-105 L lens which worked out ok. I tried a Sony mirrorless once, but really didn't like it at all. I remember that some of the Nikon crop cameras are pretty small too. I also remember considering the Df (?--the retro camera) as a possibility because of its size. The good lenses really are heavy, but I remember liking the Nikon 70-300 kit lens a lot and never thought it was that heavy. You might explore the option of different ways of carrying equipment and maybe lighter versions of what you are used to.

I really hate getting old because I like to combine photography with other outdoor activities, but I think it is still pretty doable. I also took a Sony rx100 v with me on a recent trip where I would be hiking a lot in sandy and not ideal conditions, and I liked it a lot. I only wish it had a longer reach. I should also add that a friend just got the Fuji x-t2 (?). It is a very nice camera and not too heavy with the lenses, so you have several lighter weight options.

Good luck in finding something that will work for you.

10MPlayer Loc: California

I was out shooting birds a couple of weeks ago and saw an older woman, probably about my age heh, using some sort of harness and brace arrangement. I think the harness was around her shoulders and there appeared to be an arm attached to her waist. She would swing the camera up on a gimbaled head and take her pictures. It looked something like the attached picture in the link. It may be an option to just giving up on your fine camera. https://www.adorama.com/facsss.html?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=%5bSHOPPING%5d%20%5bADL%5d%20%5bPLA%5d%20-%20Generic&utm_term=4586887635569009&utm_content=%5bPLA%5d%20-%20Generic

MrGNY Loc: New York

As someone else suggested try changing your strap. I switched to the Peak Design leash and that takes the weight off the back of your neck. You can carry the camera cross body and adjust it so it doesn't bounce around. Slide around, up and shoot. As others said maybe change your lens. You may try rigging up a brace that supports the camera from the bottom against your torso to counter the weight of the lens if you prefer to keep the camera in front of you. Bolt in the tripod mounting hole a 2 pieces of wood to create a T and pad the part that goes against you. Make it long enough to just glide up and down your torso.

When I went for the upgrade in my camera I was back and forth between the D7500 and D500, I ended up going with the D7500 since I knew I would be walking with it all the time on vacation. The perceived weight difference made that choice. D7200 is 4.9 oz's lighter than the D500.

MrGNY Loc: New York

I was writing my reply as you were writing yours.

blackest Loc: Ireland

Thats kind of a bargain for that kind of set up, most of these steadycam rigs are 100's if not 1,000's in price.

I find it hard to believe its the weight as such, more the distribution of weight. If you could lose 5 pounds would the camera be a problem?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I thought a monopod might work. Much cheaper.

2Much Loc: WA

If you're happy with the 70-200mm focal range, you might consider trading the f/2.8 for the f/4 version. The 70-200mm f/4 is half the weight, and only a few ounces more than the 300mm f/4 and variable aperture 70-300 mm mentioned as alternatives.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Good idea!!

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Well I'll throw my hat in the ring
I'm still using my Nikon gear D5 with D500 second camera
That out of the way
I'm now using Olympus OMDEM1MK2 doing wild life including BIF
It's 1/2 weight 1/3 size and price is much lower too.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

In my opinion...you have a couple to choose from...the em1ii and the new g9. I’d still take the em1ii since it has both cdaf and pdaf

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

this topic is making me wonder about my future. My brother in law who is two years young than I is thinking about turning in his d750 for something lighter. I just turned 68 and am recovering from a September 1st rotator cuff repair. The damaged occurred when I slipped while walking down a step hill east of Marsalis earlier this year. I landed on my forearms while protecting my D500 and the 18 to 300 mm lens. No damage to the camera; but though out the summer the damage to the left arm became apparent as using the chainsaw and moving my arm became very painful. Thanks to the surgeon, the therapy and me exercising, today I achieved full motion up over my head. There is still pain but it is getting less. I find that an item I picked up in Bushmills last year helps dealing with the pain. The six mouths of reduced activity has reduced my muscle mass much more than I expected.

That said I am hitting the free weights and am all the way up to benching 20 pounds and curling 10 pound bar bells. Not too bad considering a month ago; 1 pound was all the left arm could handle. I can now use the D500 and the large lens without too much fatigue. I am hoping that things continue to improve.
a recent post on the sigma 150 to 600 sport zoom has me wanting one. But no way can i use a 6.3 pound lens on a 1.9 pound camera until the shoulder is back to where I can lift as before the accicent. Also the is no camera store in town to test the camera. I figure once I can curl 40 pounds I might be up to the camera. Time will tell if I ever get there.

I thank God that I can still a least think i might get back to where i was. I am looking forward to cross country sking this year if we ever get enough snow. The neat thing about falling is you get to ice the shoulder instantly.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Panasonic GH5 - 725 grams
D500 = 760 grams
Difference of 45 grams = 1.6 oz.
stick with the D500 and buy newer, lighter lens

pmackd Loc: Alameda CA

This is either an ignorant or an insensitive post or both. People come in all shapes and sizes. So do disabilities and injuries. What one 75 year old can do with or without extensive exercise, a healthy 20 year old might not be able to do. Not to speak of another 75 year old. Mostly, I think you are boasting.